The Better Business Bureau recently took a firm stand against Social Media Credential Fraud. The BBB stated that "marketers must be careful what they promise in exchange for a "Like" on Facebook and that they are not using misleading or artificial means to inflate the number of Facebook likes."
Social Media Credential Fraud may also be referred to as Like-Gating since the concept is the same in that misleading or artificial means are utilized to boost one's social media metrics. Social Media Credential Fraud may occur when an individual manipulates his social media metrics such as the Twitter following to follower ratio for commercial gain.
I have stated over and over again that Social Media Credential Fraud is a growing problem that must be eliminated. I have come out strongly against this practice and now the Better Business Bureau has agreed with my position. It is only a matter of time before the Federal Trade Commission begins proceedings against those who are practicing Social Media Credential Fraud and/or Like-Gating.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved
Showing posts with label Social Media Credential Fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Media Credential Fraud. Show all posts
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
How to keep your social media profile embarrassment free
Protecting your social media profile is extremely important because employers and clients are Googling people to investigate prospective candidates and business partners on the Internet. Therefore, be careful what and where you post online.
In a recent blog post, I discussed Social Media Credential Fraud. Right after my post, a legal marketer and non-practicing lawyer by the name of Larry Bodine appeared to defend the practice and made some unprofessional and unprovoked comments directed towards me on this blog. I have never met Mr. Bodine nor have I ever written about him.
Mr. Bodine used the word "crank" when describing me and stated, "you don't know anything about social media marketing." He has a First Amendment right to state his opinion; and I welcome him to visit my blog and post his comments. Mr. Bodine may refer to me as a "crank" or any other names his heart desires. There is an old legal saying I remember from law school: "If you can't argue the facts, argue the law, if you can't argue the law argue the facts, and if you can't argue either the facts or the law, attack opposing counsel."
I could have easily deleted Mr. Bodine's comments but I chose not to do so. Instead, I responded to his comments and I offered to meet him for a cup of coffee. In addition, I asked him to answer a few questions. Unfortunately, Mr. Bodine chose not to respond to my questions.
The moral of the story is that you must always consider how others may view your online comments. I do not blog to embarrass but to inform and add value to the conversation. I was hoping that because I discovered an unethical and troubling activity that has already negatively tarnished some members of the legal marketing community, Mr. Bodine would be interested in taking a leadership role to root out this practice. Instead of using my discovery as a learning and teaching moment, Mr. Bodine attacked the messenger.
What is worse? Making unprofessional and childish comments towards another lawyer on social media without any evidence to support them or appearing to defend and endorse an unethical and misleading social media marketing practice? It begs to wonder what does Mr. Bodine really know about social media and social media marketing?
To learn more about how the law may affect your social media usage and whether your social media marketing campaigns are FTC compliant you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In a recent blog post, I discussed Social Media Credential Fraud. Right after my post, a legal marketer and non-practicing lawyer by the name of Larry Bodine appeared to defend the practice and made some unprofessional and unprovoked comments directed towards me on this blog. I have never met Mr. Bodine nor have I ever written about him.
Mr. Bodine used the word "crank" when describing me and stated, "you don't know anything about social media marketing." He has a First Amendment right to state his opinion; and I welcome him to visit my blog and post his comments. Mr. Bodine may refer to me as a "crank" or any other names his heart desires. There is an old legal saying I remember from law school: "If you can't argue the facts, argue the law, if you can't argue the law argue the facts, and if you can't argue either the facts or the law, attack opposing counsel."
I could have easily deleted Mr. Bodine's comments but I chose not to do so. Instead, I responded to his comments and I offered to meet him for a cup of coffee. In addition, I asked him to answer a few questions. Unfortunately, Mr. Bodine chose not to respond to my questions.
The moral of the story is that you must always consider how others may view your online comments. I do not blog to embarrass but to inform and add value to the conversation. I was hoping that because I discovered an unethical and troubling activity that has already negatively tarnished some members of the legal marketing community, Mr. Bodine would be interested in taking a leadership role to root out this practice. Instead of using my discovery as a learning and teaching moment, Mr. Bodine attacked the messenger.
What is worse? Making unprofessional and childish comments towards another lawyer on social media without any evidence to support them or appearing to defend and endorse an unethical and misleading social media marketing practice? It begs to wonder what does Mr. Bodine really know about social media and social media marketing?
To learn more about how the law may affect your social media usage and whether your social media marketing campaigns are FTC compliant you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Do Marketing Ethics and the FTC Advertising Regulations Matter in the Social Media Age?
P.T. Barnum is credited with the phrase, "There's a sucker born every minute." Social Media provides entrepreneurs so many new opportunities to expand their brand and footprint in many exciting and fun ways. However, social media also provides snake oil salesmen and others whose ethics are questionable the ability to defraud in ways not imagined until a few years ago.
After a recent speaking engagement, a lawyer approached me and said, "I think I have been duped the way Oprah was by James Frey." The lawyer told me he had bought a book on Amazon.com that had an amazing initial editorial review. For the record, the book's official editorial review states, it "is a 'must-read' for all law firms. Indeed, it should be studied avidly, not only by lawyers, but also by any professional service firm that wants to grow its business fast using Web 2.0 techniques. As a successful New York attorney turned social media guru, [name removed] deals with his subject comprehensively and with an easy authority." The author of the social media book that the lawyer bought is self described social media expert Adrian Dayton.
With the above editorial review along with Mr. Dayton's celebrity like Twitter Following to Followers ratio, the lawyer told me he believed that he was buying a book from a real social media expert. The lawyer said that he thought that anyone who had around 50,000 followers but only had to follow several thousand people in return must be an expert in teaching others how to harness the power of Twitter to build their business.
After listening to me discuss Social Media Credential Fraud, the lawyer told me he was angry at himself for blindly believing Mr. Dayton's official biography without doing any further due diligence. He stated that despite following Mr. Dayton's recommendations for the past 9 months, that tweeting will build your book of business, he doesn't have any business development progress to show for his efforts. I told the lawyer that since I have been tweeting from @bradleyshear on June 15, 2009, I have not had a single legal client contact me and say, "I love your Tweets, you're hired!" I have tweeted more than 2,000 times from @bradleyshear.
Attorney Brian Tannebaum's blog posts about Mr. Dayton on November 9, 2009, November 26, 2009, December 3, 2009, June 16, 2010, and February 9, 2011 reveal that Mr. Dayton may be embellishing his credentials and may have a problem with truth in advertising (i.e.Rule 7.1 of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct and the the FTC's Advertising Regulations). Last year, Mr. Dayton un-followed at least 47,000 people on Twitter. As of this writing, Mr. Dayton is following 7,533 people and has 41,026 followers.
If you didn't know that Mr. Dayton has already un-followed at least 47,000 people on Twitter, you may have the impression that he has an organically created rock star like Twitter Following to Followers ratio. However, the numbers don't lie. Mr. Dayton has followed at least 14,000 more people than are following him back. Having to follow at least 54,533 people in order to receive only 41,026 followers in return is not very "expert like." Mr. Dayton's Twitter activity demonstrates that he is a social media expert at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
I challenge Mr. Dayton to dispute Mr. Tannebaum's and my allegations. I take great pride in being a lawyer and like thousands of other lawyers I made many sacrifices to become a lawyer. I find it offensive when a non-practicing attorney such as Mr. Dayton continues to mislead the public without any repercussions. Since first writing and speaking about Mr. Dayton's activity without naming him, I have not had a single lawyer state that Mr. Dayton's conduct is ethical or legal.
In previous blog posts, I initially did not name Mr. Dayton to provide him the opportunity to take corrective action (he started following me again on Twitter recently so I am sure he has read my April 1, 2011 and April 8, 2011 blog posts about Social Media Credential Fraud). Unfortunately, Mr. Dayton has not yet taken corrective action.
Caveat emptor when hiring "experts". Don't be a sucker. At least perform a Google search to learn more about an "expert's" credentials. Just because someone calls himself/herself an expert and has a social media profile that appears "expert like" does not make it so. As Malcolm Gladwell states, it takes at least 10,000 hours to master a craft.
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
After a recent speaking engagement, a lawyer approached me and said, "I think I have been duped the way Oprah was by James Frey." The lawyer told me he had bought a book on Amazon.com that had an amazing initial editorial review. For the record, the book's official editorial review states, it "is a 'must-read' for all law firms. Indeed, it should be studied avidly, not only by lawyers, but also by any professional service firm that wants to grow its business fast using Web 2.0 techniques. As a successful New York attorney turned social media guru, [name removed] deals with his subject comprehensively and with an easy authority." The author of the social media book that the lawyer bought is self described social media expert Adrian Dayton.
With the above editorial review along with Mr. Dayton's celebrity like Twitter Following to Followers ratio, the lawyer told me he believed that he was buying a book from a real social media expert. The lawyer said that he thought that anyone who had around 50,000 followers but only had to follow several thousand people in return must be an expert in teaching others how to harness the power of Twitter to build their business.
After listening to me discuss Social Media Credential Fraud, the lawyer told me he was angry at himself for blindly believing Mr. Dayton's official biography without doing any further due diligence. He stated that despite following Mr. Dayton's recommendations for the past 9 months, that tweeting will build your book of business, he doesn't have any business development progress to show for his efforts. I told the lawyer that since I have been tweeting from @bradleyshear on June 15, 2009, I have not had a single legal client contact me and say, "I love your Tweets, you're hired!" I have tweeted more than 2,000 times from @bradleyshear.
Attorney Brian Tannebaum's blog posts about Mr. Dayton on November 9, 2009, November 26, 2009, December 3, 2009, June 16, 2010, and February 9, 2011 reveal that Mr. Dayton may be embellishing his credentials and may have a problem with truth in advertising (i.e.Rule 7.1 of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct and the the FTC's Advertising Regulations). Last year, Mr. Dayton un-followed at least 47,000 people on Twitter. As of this writing, Mr. Dayton is following 7,533 people and has 41,026 followers.
If you didn't know that Mr. Dayton has already un-followed at least 47,000 people on Twitter, you may have the impression that he has an organically created rock star like Twitter Following to Followers ratio. However, the numbers don't lie. Mr. Dayton has followed at least 14,000 more people than are following him back. Having to follow at least 54,533 people in order to receive only 41,026 followers in return is not very "expert like." Mr. Dayton's Twitter activity demonstrates that he is a social media expert at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
I challenge Mr. Dayton to dispute Mr. Tannebaum's and my allegations. I take great pride in being a lawyer and like thousands of other lawyers I made many sacrifices to become a lawyer. I find it offensive when a non-practicing attorney such as Mr. Dayton continues to mislead the public without any repercussions. Since first writing and speaking about Mr. Dayton's activity without naming him, I have not had a single lawyer state that Mr. Dayton's conduct is ethical or legal.
In previous blog posts, I initially did not name Mr. Dayton to provide him the opportunity to take corrective action (he started following me again on Twitter recently so I am sure he has read my April 1, 2011 and April 8, 2011 blog posts about Social Media Credential Fraud). Unfortunately, Mr. Dayton has not yet taken corrective action.
Caveat emptor when hiring "experts". Don't be a sucker. At least perform a Google search to learn more about an "expert's" credentials. Just because someone calls himself/herself an expert and has a social media profile that appears "expert like" does not make it so. As Malcolm Gladwell states, it takes at least 10,000 hours to master a craft.
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Will Your Social Media Expert's Advice Violate the FTC Advertising Regulations Part II
An idea attributed to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels goes something along the lines, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually believe it. Unfortunately, there are some people who practice this philosophy in the social media marketing world.
Last week, I wrote about a self-described social media marketing expert ("Expert #1) who actively follows tens of thousands of people and then once he receives a follow back he un-follows them in order to increase his followers to following ratio so it looks like he is a rock star or professional athlete. This practice is known as Social Media Credential Fraud.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. On April 1, 2011, this self-described social media marketing expert was following 7,000 people and had 41,009 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,523 people and has only 41,040 followers. Therefore, in a week he has followed 523 more people and obtained only 31 followers in return. In almost 3 months, he has followed 3,106 more people and lost 9 followers. His Return on Follow (ROF) is not what I would call "expert like". If you extrapolate these findings over a year you may realize the depth of this deception.
There is another excellent example of Social Media Credential Fraud that I would like to share because a friend of mine recently told me I should follow another self described social media expert. As soon as I saw the name of this person I said to myself I think this person has played the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game with me.
I was right. On 2/16/10, another self described social media marketing expert, "Expert #2," had the following stats: 11,290 followers; and following 11,390. Therefore, he had to follow 100 more people than were following him back. On 6/5/2010, "Expert#2's stats were: 12,277 followers; and 12,748 following. He had to follow 471 more people than were following him back. As of this writing, "Expert #2's stats are: 14,424 followers, and 5,243 following. All of a sudden, "Expert #2" found his social media wings.
Expert #2 now has a Twitter account that he feels better reflects his persona so it may enable him to sell social media marketing services. Expert #2 recently advertised to law firms, "Blogging and Social Media Package Only $1,800 Per Month" and "This program has a value of $4,000 per month!" and "P.P.S. We only have room for 10 new clients in this program at this low price." "Expert #2's social media assistant also plays the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game. On 5/27/10, Expert #2's social media assistant's stats were: 9,458 followers, and 9,588 following. As of this writing, the social media assistant's stats are: 10,252 followers, and 5,535 following. What a great turnaround. How did this happen?
Oh, I forgot to tell you that Expert #1 and Expert #2 are good friends. How do I know this? Expert #1 has Tweeted that they are are good friends. Therefore, are they sharing with each other tips on how to perpetrate Social Media Credential Fraud?
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Last week, I wrote about a self-described social media marketing expert ("Expert #1) who actively follows tens of thousands of people and then once he receives a follow back he un-follows them in order to increase his followers to following ratio so it looks like he is a rock star or professional athlete. This practice is known as Social Media Credential Fraud.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. On April 1, 2011, this self-described social media marketing expert was following 7,000 people and had 41,009 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,523 people and has only 41,040 followers. Therefore, in a week he has followed 523 more people and obtained only 31 followers in return. In almost 3 months, he has followed 3,106 more people and lost 9 followers. His Return on Follow (ROF) is not what I would call "expert like". If you extrapolate these findings over a year you may realize the depth of this deception.
There is another excellent example of Social Media Credential Fraud that I would like to share because a friend of mine recently told me I should follow another self described social media expert. As soon as I saw the name of this person I said to myself I think this person has played the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game with me.
I was right. On 2/16/10, another self described social media marketing expert, "Expert #2," had the following stats: 11,290 followers; and following 11,390. Therefore, he had to follow 100 more people than were following him back. On 6/5/2010, "Expert#2's stats were: 12,277 followers; and 12,748 following. He had to follow 471 more people than were following him back. As of this writing, "Expert #2's stats are: 14,424 followers, and 5,243 following. All of a sudden, "Expert #2" found his social media wings.
Expert #2 now has a Twitter account that he feels better reflects his persona so it may enable him to sell social media marketing services. Expert #2 recently advertised to law firms, "Blogging and Social Media Package Only $1,800 Per Month" and "This program has a value of $4,000 per month!" and "P.P.S. We only have room for 10 new clients in this program at this low price." "Expert #2's social media assistant also plays the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game. On 5/27/10, Expert #2's social media assistant's stats were: 9,458 followers, and 9,588 following. As of this writing, the social media assistant's stats are: 10,252 followers, and 5,535 following. What a great turnaround. How did this happen?
Oh, I forgot to tell you that Expert #1 and Expert #2 are good friends. How do I know this? Expert #1 has Tweeted that they are are good friends. Therefore, are they sharing with each other tips on how to perpetrate Social Media Credential Fraud?
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Will Your Social Media Expert's Advice Violate the FTC Advertising Regulations?
Will your social media expert's advice and/or actions violate the Federal Trade Commission's Advertising Regulations? This is a question you may want to answer before you engage a social media guru for your company.
Social Media Credential Fraud is a growing problem. Social Media Credential Fraud may occur when someone utilizes social media to create a false impression that they are an expert in their profession for commercial gain. Under the FTC's Advertising Regulations, it is crystal clear that engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices is unlawful.
I believe it is important to discuss this issue again because a self-described "social media expert" started following me again today on Twitter. This "social media expert" followed me last year and then as soon as I followed him back he un-followed me. Of course, I un-followed him back because I only followed him in the first place because he initially followed me. This social media expert's Twitter feed mostly consists of public conversations with a small group of his friends and/or fellow legal marketers, strategic Foursquare check-ins, and re-posts of his old articles and blog posts. Every once in awhile he will post a link to an interesting article written by someone else; unfortunately, he mostly clogs his Twitter feed with useless and self-serving information so I will not be following him back. Since I will not be following him back, he will un-follow me in the near future. I guarantee it.
This "social media expert" is desperate to keep his followers above 41,000. I mean Muammar Gadhafi desperate. His whole persona is based on the impression that he is a social media expert and has a large organic Twitter following. If he did not practice Social Media Credential Fraud he would be following tens of thousands of more people than are following him back. Last year, he wrote a blog post that said something along the lines, "I un-followed almost 50,000" people. In this rationalizing post, he stated that he could no longer focus on new followers so it was time to do a mass un-follow.
Does this "social media expert" think he is Lady Gaga or Britney Spears? Lady Gaga follows 144,000+ people and Britney Spears follows more than 415,000 people on Twitter. Would Lady Gaga or Britney Spears ever un-follow 50,000 people to better focus on their most die hard fans? Absolutely not. Therefore, this self described "social media expert's" explanation why he did a mass un-follow is not believable. The "social media expert" has un-followed at least 50,000 people to hide the fact that he needs to first follow tens of thousands of people before some of those people he initially followed follow him back.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,000 people and has only 41,009 followers. In approximately, 2.5 months this "social media expert" has followed 2,583 more people but has lost 40 followers. This statistic demonstrates that this person is a "social media expert" at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
If your social media expert is personally engaging in activity that may violate the FTC's Advertising Regulations you may want to ask yourself will he advise my company to do anything unlawful or unethical? If a "social media expert" appears to have great "social media credentials" take a look beyond the numbers to determine how they were achieved. Perform your due diligence and fully review all social media activity. If a "social media expert" appears to have celebrity like Twitter "Following to Followers" figures there is a good possibility that Social Media Credential Fraud is involved.
To learn more about social media ethics and to learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Social Media Credential Fraud is a growing problem. Social Media Credential Fraud may occur when someone utilizes social media to create a false impression that they are an expert in their profession for commercial gain. Under the FTC's Advertising Regulations, it is crystal clear that engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices is unlawful.
I believe it is important to discuss this issue again because a self-described "social media expert" started following me again today on Twitter. This "social media expert" followed me last year and then as soon as I followed him back he un-followed me. Of course, I un-followed him back because I only followed him in the first place because he initially followed me. This social media expert's Twitter feed mostly consists of public conversations with a small group of his friends and/or fellow legal marketers, strategic Foursquare check-ins, and re-posts of his old articles and blog posts. Every once in awhile he will post a link to an interesting article written by someone else; unfortunately, he mostly clogs his Twitter feed with useless and self-serving information so I will not be following him back. Since I will not be following him back, he will un-follow me in the near future. I guarantee it.
This "social media expert" is desperate to keep his followers above 41,000. I mean Muammar Gadhafi desperate. His whole persona is based on the impression that he is a social media expert and has a large organic Twitter following. If he did not practice Social Media Credential Fraud he would be following tens of thousands of more people than are following him back. Last year, he wrote a blog post that said something along the lines, "I un-followed almost 50,000" people. In this rationalizing post, he stated that he could no longer focus on new followers so it was time to do a mass un-follow.
Does this "social media expert" think he is Lady Gaga or Britney Spears? Lady Gaga follows 144,000+ people and Britney Spears follows more than 415,000 people on Twitter. Would Lady Gaga or Britney Spears ever un-follow 50,000 people to better focus on their most die hard fans? Absolutely not. Therefore, this self described "social media expert's" explanation why he did a mass un-follow is not believable. The "social media expert" has un-followed at least 50,000 people to hide the fact that he needs to first follow tens of thousands of people before some of those people he initially followed follow him back.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,000 people and has only 41,009 followers. In approximately, 2.5 months this "social media expert" has followed 2,583 more people but has lost 40 followers. This statistic demonstrates that this person is a "social media expert" at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
If your social media expert is personally engaging in activity that may violate the FTC's Advertising Regulations you may want to ask yourself will he advise my company to do anything unlawful or unethical? If a "social media expert" appears to have great "social media credentials" take a look beyond the numbers to determine how they were achieved. Perform your due diligence and fully review all social media activity. If a "social media expert" appears to have celebrity like Twitter "Following to Followers" figures there is a good possibility that Social Media Credential Fraud is involved.
To learn more about social media ethics and to learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Social Media Credential Fraud
If you are reading this blog post there is a good possibility you have heard of the following social media terms: Tweet, To Friend, Un-Friend, To Follow, To Un-Follow, etc...However, have you ever heard of "Social Media Credential Fraud"? Is "Social Media Credential Fraud" a mythical term or is it a new type of fraud that is being perpetuated by some social media users who are trying to be someone whom they are not? Popular. Seen as an expert. Or both.
I discussed this topic while being part of a panel at LegalTech New York 2011 that covered social media branding and ethical issues. During the session, I posed the following hypothetical: Is it unethical for a Twitter user who utilizes a Twitter account for commercial purposes to intentionally follow someone on Twitter, only to stop following that person once a follow back has been received for the specific purpose of inflating one's follower numbers? Is this practice just 1) Bad Manners; or 2) Mere Puffery; or 3) Misleading and/or deceptive under the FTC Advertising Guidelines and/or a Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility (if the Twitter user is also a lawyer)?
For example, what if a Twitter user followed 100,000 people, and 50,000 of those people followed the Twitter user back based upon the initial follow. Then the Twitter user systematically un-followed 95,000 of those people so his following to follower number has a ratio of 1:10. After achieving a celebrity like Twitter following to follower ratio, the Twitter user then advertises that he is an expert in his profession and as part of his sales pitch points to his Twitter following to follower ratio or advertises he has a certain number of Twitter followers. Is this practice ethical or is it legal?
This scenario sounds like it could be something that happened in the movie Mean Girls. Unfortunately, it is a behavior that some Twitter users engage in. The FTC Dot Com Disclosures: Information About Advertising states, "The FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices broadly covers advertising claims, marketing and promotional activities, and sales practices in general. The FTC's Advertising and Marketing Guidance states, "under the law, claims in advertisements must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair, and must be evidence-based. For some specialized products or services, additional rules may apply." Since a Twitter account may be considered an advertising platform, the FTC's Dot Com Disclosures may apply to your Tweets.
In the legal profession, lawyers must follow their jurisdiction's Code of Professional Responsibility. For example, Rule 7.1 of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct State: "(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not use or disseminate or participate in the use or dissemination of any advertisement that: (1) contains statements or claims that are false, deceptive or misleading; or (2) violates a Rule." Therefore, a lawyer's Twitter account may be perceived as an advertisement even if it is only used for personal purposes. What if the Twitter account is utilized for both commercial and personal activities? Social Media has blurred the lines between what some people may see as personal and what others may interpret as your professional message. Therefore, it is imperative to understand that your social media activity may have both ethical and legal consequences.
The bottom line is that reputation building and expertise takes years to achieve and that short cuts in the long run will fail. In the 1987 hit movie, "Can't Buy Me Love" Ronald Miller, an unpopular kid in high school paid the most popular girl in high school Cindy Mancini $1,000 to pretend that she was his girlfriend for a month. Ronald's hypothesis was that if Cindy was his girlfriend he would become popular. Overnight, Ronald went from "totally geek" to "totally sheik". However, his new found popularity was short-lived because as soon as the rest of the school found out that he had to pay Cindy to pretend to be his girlfriend (analogous on Twitter to paying a service to obtain followers on your behalf or following tens of thousands of people and then un-following them once you receive a follow back) Ronald's brand was destroyed. Ronald learned in high school that there are no short cuts in reputation building.
The bottom line is acting like a "Social Media Ronald Miller" will not succeed in the long run. While utilizing social media one must understand there are ethical and legal ramifications of what you post and how you utilize each platform.
To learn more about social media legal, branding, and ethical issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
I discussed this topic while being part of a panel at LegalTech New York 2011 that covered social media branding and ethical issues. During the session, I posed the following hypothetical: Is it unethical for a Twitter user who utilizes a Twitter account for commercial purposes to intentionally follow someone on Twitter, only to stop following that person once a follow back has been received for the specific purpose of inflating one's follower numbers? Is this practice just 1) Bad Manners; or 2) Mere Puffery; or 3) Misleading and/or deceptive under the FTC Advertising Guidelines and/or a Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility (if the Twitter user is also a lawyer)?
For example, what if a Twitter user followed 100,000 people, and 50,000 of those people followed the Twitter user back based upon the initial follow. Then the Twitter user systematically un-followed 95,000 of those people so his following to follower number has a ratio of 1:10. After achieving a celebrity like Twitter following to follower ratio, the Twitter user then advertises that he is an expert in his profession and as part of his sales pitch points to his Twitter following to follower ratio or advertises he has a certain number of Twitter followers. Is this practice ethical or is it legal?
This scenario sounds like it could be something that happened in the movie Mean Girls. Unfortunately, it is a behavior that some Twitter users engage in. The FTC Dot Com Disclosures: Information About Advertising states, "The FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices broadly covers advertising claims, marketing and promotional activities, and sales practices in general. The FTC's Advertising and Marketing Guidance states, "under the law, claims in advertisements must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair, and must be evidence-based. For some specialized products or services, additional rules may apply." Since a Twitter account may be considered an advertising platform, the FTC's Dot Com Disclosures may apply to your Tweets.
In the legal profession, lawyers must follow their jurisdiction's Code of Professional Responsibility. For example, Rule 7.1 of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct State: "(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not use or disseminate or participate in the use or dissemination of any advertisement that: (1) contains statements or claims that are false, deceptive or misleading; or (2) violates a Rule." Therefore, a lawyer's Twitter account may be perceived as an advertisement even if it is only used for personal purposes. What if the Twitter account is utilized for both commercial and personal activities? Social Media has blurred the lines between what some people may see as personal and what others may interpret as your professional message. Therefore, it is imperative to understand that your social media activity may have both ethical and legal consequences.
The bottom line is that reputation building and expertise takes years to achieve and that short cuts in the long run will fail. In the 1987 hit movie, "Can't Buy Me Love" Ronald Miller, an unpopular kid in high school paid the most popular girl in high school Cindy Mancini $1,000 to pretend that she was his girlfriend for a month. Ronald's hypothesis was that if Cindy was his girlfriend he would become popular. Overnight, Ronald went from "totally geek" to "totally sheik". However, his new found popularity was short-lived because as soon as the rest of the school found out that he had to pay Cindy to pretend to be his girlfriend (analogous on Twitter to paying a service to obtain followers on your behalf or following tens of thousands of people and then un-following them once you receive a follow back) Ronald's brand was destroyed. Ronald learned in high school that there are no short cuts in reputation building.
The bottom line is acting like a "Social Media Ronald Miller" will not succeed in the long run. While utilizing social media one must understand there are ethical and legal ramifications of what you post and how you utilize each platform.
To learn more about social media legal, branding, and ethical issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Social Media Law Predictions For 2011
Reading the tea leaves and advising clients is what lawyers are paid to do. 2010 was the coming out party for social media and social media law. With the release of the movie "The Social Network" and Facebook surpassing Google in several different web traffic metrics, social media and the practice of social media law has finally come of age. In no particular order, below are some of my social media law predictions for 2011:
1. Employers will continue to grapple with where to draw the line regarding employee social media use.
2. More courts will address social media usage in their instructions to juries and there will be more e-discovery related social media matters.
3. The judicial system, bar associations, and bar counsels will work to find a common sense approach regarding how lawyers, judges, and clients may or may not interact with other other on social media.
4. Intellectual property law will be updated to better protect copyright owners.
5. The Federal Election Commission and state election boards will update their rules to address social media usage by political candidates.
6. Regulated industries such as banking and finance, pharma, etc...will continue refining their approach to regulating social media usage.
7. Federal and state governments will determine what official government social media records need to be retained.
8. Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, NSA, U.S. Armed Forces, etc... will need re-evaluate their social media policies and determine what they allow their employees to post online.
9. Cyberbulling, Privacy, Defamation, and First Amendment issues will become further intertwined and a rational legal framework will need to be created to address these matters.
10. Social Media Credential Fraud will continue to increase as more people will try to create the perception that they are experts in their professional field due to their social media activity.
To learn more about my social media law predictions you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
1. Employers will continue to grapple with where to draw the line regarding employee social media use.
2. More courts will address social media usage in their instructions to juries and there will be more e-discovery related social media matters.
3. The judicial system, bar associations, and bar counsels will work to find a common sense approach regarding how lawyers, judges, and clients may or may not interact with other other on social media.
4. Intellectual property law will be updated to better protect copyright owners.
5. The Federal Election Commission and state election boards will update their rules to address social media usage by political candidates.
6. Regulated industries such as banking and finance, pharma, etc...will continue refining their approach to regulating social media usage.
7. Federal and state governments will determine what official government social media records need to be retained.
8. Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, NSA, U.S. Armed Forces, etc... will need re-evaluate their social media policies and determine what they allow their employees to post online.
9. Cyberbulling, Privacy, Defamation, and First Amendment issues will become further intertwined and a rational legal framework will need to be created to address these matters.
10. Social Media Credential Fraud will continue to increase as more people will try to create the perception that they are experts in their professional field due to their social media activity.
To learn more about my social media law predictions you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)